What do you think?
Rate this book
Measure for Measure
Measure for Measure is among the most passionately discussed of Shakespeare’s plays. In it, a duke temporarily removes himself from governing his city-state, deputizing a member of his administration, Angelo, to enforce the laws more rigorously. Angelo chooses as his first victim Claudio, condemning him to death because he impregnated Juliet before their marriage.
Claudio’s sister Isabella, who is entering a convent, pleads for her brother’s life. Angelo attempts to extort sex from her, but Isabella preserves her chastity. The duke, in disguise, eavesdrops as she tells her brother about Angelo’s behavior, then offers to ally himself with her against Angelo.
Claudio’s sister Isabella, who is entering a convent, pleads for her brother’s life. Angelo attempts to extort sex from her, but Isabella preserves her chastity. The duke, in disguise, eavesdrops as she tells her brother about Angelo’s behavior, then offers to ally himself with her against Angelo.
278 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1604
About the author
William Shakespeare
21.1k books44.9k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,696 reviews
December 29, 2017
Shakespeare was pushing the boundaries with Measure for Measure.
A royal proclamation under Elizabeth 1st in 1559 strictly prohibited stage plays from dealing with matters of religion or current public issues of governance.
In the early years of the 1600's London was in a dilemma. The translation of the King James Version Bible had just begun yet lawlessness run rampant in London. Within sight of Shakespeare's own Globe Theater were houses of prostitution.
Mr.Shakespeare had an idea for a play but that ol proclamation was a problem. So to keep himself out of trouble he simply changed the setting of this play from London to Vienna.
There were no English proclamations about stage plays concerning Vienna Vice.
Within this story the majority of Vienna's residents have little or no respect for the law. Especially those laws concerning fornication. One reason for this is the Duke of Vienna's unwillingness to enforce these laws. He doesn't want citizens to think of him as an overbearing ruler. But the Duke does realize his citizens of sin need reining in. So he devises a plan: He informs those in authority under him that he must leave Vienna on a diplomatic mission. Then he instructs them that in his absence they are to enforce the city laws. Instead of actually leaving the city the Duke disguises himself under the cloak of friar in order to watch the interim authorities in action. Shakespeare did a great job here writing enough character hypocrisy to shock the reader and at other times using a very humorous dialogue.
By the plays conclusion the Duke is forced to man up, revealing himself from under disguise and issuing biblical justice.
So yes,Shakespeare knew very well that patrons attending this play had to pass by brothels in order to get there. William Shakespeare was a rebel.
Matthew 7 New King James Version 1)“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2) For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3) And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"
page 92
the Duke transfers power to Angelo
"So fare you well. To th'hopeful execution do I leave you
Of your commissions.
Your scope is as mine own
So to enforce or qualify the laws as to your soul seems good."
page 93
Lucio speaking with other Gentleman of the transfer of power and it's hypocrisy,
even Shakespeare picks on pirates
Lucio:"Thou conclud'st like the sanctimonious pirate that went to sea with the ten commandments, but scraped one out of the table."
1 Gentleman:"Thou shalt not steal?"
"There's not a soldier of us all that, in the thanksgiving before meat, do relish the petition well that prays for peace."
page 95/96
Mistress Overdone and Gentleman
Mistress Overdone: "Well, well; there's one yonder arrested and carried to prison was worth five thousand of you all."
Gentleman 1: 'Claudio to prison? Tis not so."
Mistress Overdone:'I saw him arrested, saw him carried away, and, which is more, within these three days his head to be chopped off !"
"I am sure of it: and it is for getting Madam Julietta with child."
page 125/126
narration
Angelo speaks his thoughts on his lust for Isabella
"What's this? What's this? Is this her fault, or mine? The tempter or the tempted, who sins most, ha?
Not she: nor doth she tempt: but it is I."
"Dost thou desire her foully, for those things that make her good? Most dangerous is that temptation that doth goad us on to sin..."
"Never could the strumpet with all her double vigour, art and nature, once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid subdues me quite."
page 135/136
Angelo blackmailing Isabella(novitiate training Nun), Claudio's sister
Angelo; "Plainly conceive, I love you."
Isabella: "My brother did love Juliet and you tell me that he shall die for't."
Angelo; "He shall not, if you give me love."
'Believe me on mine honour, my words express my purpose."
Isabella: "Ha! Little honour to be much believed ..."
"I will proclaim thee, Angelo, look for't. Sign me a present pardon for my brother, or with an outstretched throat I'll tell the world aloud what man thou art."
Angelo: "Who will believe thee, Isabel? My unsoiled name, th'austereness of my life, My vouch against you, and my place i'th'state ..."
"Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes by yielding up thy body to my will, or else he must not only die the death but thy unkindness shall his death draw out ..."
page 147
"Nay, if there be no remedy for it we shall have all the world drink brown and white bastard."
This comment was really of no significance, I just wanted to know what Shakespeare meant.
I did have some idea due to I sometimes buy a Fat Bastard brand of wine for guest, because I like the name. I don't drink wine.
Shakespeare simply meant a brown or white sweet wine ... He liked the name as well.
page 196
The Duke of Vienna, no longer disguised as a friar, begins his claim for justice.
"The very mercy of the law cries out ... An Angelo for Claudio, death for death ... and measure still for measure."
"We do condemn thee to the very block where Claudio stooped to death,"
A royal proclamation under Elizabeth 1st in 1559 strictly prohibited stage plays from dealing with matters of religion or current public issues of governance.
In the early years of the 1600's London was in a dilemma. The translation of the King James Version Bible had just begun yet lawlessness run rampant in London. Within sight of Shakespeare's own Globe Theater were houses of prostitution.
Mr.Shakespeare had an idea for a play but that ol proclamation was a problem. So to keep himself out of trouble he simply changed the setting of this play from London to Vienna.
There were no English proclamations about stage plays concerning Vienna Vice.
Within this story the majority of Vienna's residents have little or no respect for the law. Especially those laws concerning fornication. One reason for this is the Duke of Vienna's unwillingness to enforce these laws. He doesn't want citizens to think of him as an overbearing ruler. But the Duke does realize his citizens of sin need reining in. So he devises a plan: He informs those in authority under him that he must leave Vienna on a diplomatic mission. Then he instructs them that in his absence they are to enforce the city laws. Instead of actually leaving the city the Duke disguises himself under the cloak of friar in order to watch the interim authorities in action. Shakespeare did a great job here writing enough character hypocrisy to shock the reader and at other times using a very humorous dialogue.
By the plays conclusion the Duke is forced to man up, revealing himself from under disguise and issuing biblical justice.
So yes,Shakespeare knew very well that patrons attending this play had to pass by brothels in order to get there. William Shakespeare was a rebel.
Matthew 7 New King James Version 1)“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2) For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3) And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"
page 92
the Duke transfers power to Angelo
"So fare you well. To th'hopeful execution do I leave you
Of your commissions.
Your scope is as mine own
So to enforce or qualify the laws as to your soul seems good."
page 93
Lucio speaking with other Gentleman of the transfer of power and it's hypocrisy,
even Shakespeare picks on pirates
Lucio:"Thou conclud'st like the sanctimonious pirate that went to sea with the ten commandments, but scraped one out of the table."
1 Gentleman:"Thou shalt not steal?"
"There's not a soldier of us all that, in the thanksgiving before meat, do relish the petition well that prays for peace."
page 95/96
Mistress Overdone and Gentleman
Mistress Overdone: "Well, well; there's one yonder arrested and carried to prison was worth five thousand of you all."
Gentleman 1: 'Claudio to prison? Tis not so."
Mistress Overdone:'I saw him arrested, saw him carried away, and, which is more, within these three days his head to be chopped off !"
"I am sure of it: and it is for getting Madam Julietta with child."
page 125/126
narration
Angelo speaks his thoughts on his lust for Isabella
"What's this? What's this? Is this her fault, or mine? The tempter or the tempted, who sins most, ha?
Not she: nor doth she tempt: but it is I."
"Dost thou desire her foully, for those things that make her good? Most dangerous is that temptation that doth goad us on to sin..."
"Never could the strumpet with all her double vigour, art and nature, once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid subdues me quite."
page 135/136
Angelo blackmailing Isabella(novitiate training Nun), Claudio's sister
Angelo; "Plainly conceive, I love you."
Isabella: "My brother did love Juliet and you tell me that he shall die for't."
Angelo; "He shall not, if you give me love."
'Believe me on mine honour, my words express my purpose."
Isabella: "Ha! Little honour to be much believed ..."
"I will proclaim thee, Angelo, look for't. Sign me a present pardon for my brother, or with an outstretched throat I'll tell the world aloud what man thou art."
Angelo: "Who will believe thee, Isabel? My unsoiled name, th'austereness of my life, My vouch against you, and my place i'th'state ..."
"Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes by yielding up thy body to my will, or else he must not only die the death but thy unkindness shall his death draw out ..."
page 147
"Nay, if there be no remedy for it we shall have all the world drink brown and white bastard."
This comment was really of no significance, I just wanted to know what Shakespeare meant.
I did have some idea due to I sometimes buy a Fat Bastard brand of wine for guest, because I like the name. I don't drink wine.
Shakespeare simply meant a brown or white sweet wine ... He liked the name as well.
page 196
The Duke of Vienna, no longer disguised as a friar, begins his claim for justice.
"The very mercy of the law cries out ... An Angelo for Claudio, death for death ... and measure still for measure."
"We do condemn thee to the very block where Claudio stooped to death,"
February 6, 2020
Why is it that I love the universe of this "dark" comedy so much, and why does it strike me as not really being so "dark" after all? Could it be because it is presided over by a "god"--the young Duke--who is priggish, diffident and comically vain (when his reputation is attacked by Lucio), and yet is unfailingly just and honorably susceptible to the attractions of female goodness and beauty? Is it because the "villain"--Angelo--is so pathetic and small that one never seriously expects he will win? Or is it because this world is--in spite of all its lust and hypocrisy--an absurd, surprisingly malleable universe in which even a base rogue like Barnadine can simply refuse to be executed, and then be allowed to survive?
All of these contribute to my great love for the play, but above all, I admire the character of Isabella, who is virtuous and brave and filled with mercy even for the vile hypocrite who wronged her. She leaves me with the feeling that--grubby and fallen though it may be--this is a world worth living for.
December 21, 2024
What's mine is yours -
And what is yours, MINE!
Measure for Measure
Act V, Scene 1.
(The Duke to his ladylove, Isabelle near the close)
You shall all be dealt equal Measure for Measure. What you give, that you shall receive.
Matthew 7.
When I saw this play in Stratford, Ontario with a friend of our family, Caroline - in 1975 - I was dealt a Queen of Spades, together with a King of Hearts (and I'm sure you know their respective connotations).
I was dealt the Queen that summer. I was expected to play the King shortly after, as a planned equal and rewarding measure for me, as healing compensation for my bipolar run of murderous pratfalls.
The player who dealt me those cards was attempting his variety of Fifth Business (see my review of that book) which ended for me, by the grace of God, in a purgatorial cataclysm.
I am reading, btw, in a biography of John Updike written after his death (the best one to my mind), that this epochal writer - the mirror of his times - suffered the same ceaseless pratfalls and guilty fame (again, my own Measure for Measure with my bad luck, though lucky love in the nick of time) that I have.
That's where two similarly parallel lines diverge.
I have stuck to my true serendipitous ladylove and wife for 47 years! But we all know Updike's amorous reputation 😐...
Anyway.
(Mea culpa, my beloved genius - may you rest in peace!)
***
Did you know that the Duke's parting shot to Isabelle - he will get her binding promise of a ring to curb his masculine wrath, in return for her maidenhead - is the stunning way equal measure is dealt to each by Shakespeare?
But, more importantly, it was Shakespeare's way to resolve the extreme tension of his Middle Plays through his own crowning Peace of Mind.
It all started with Hamlet - or should I say, HamNet - for that is James Joyce's rightful name for him! Was Joyce illegitimate too? Check Wiki. Probably.
Hamlet - Joyce's oedipal complex of his OWN birth, for his presumed but inappropriate father, which drove him to Ulysses' Nightworld - or Hamnet?
Both shall receive Measure for Measure.
As will I!
***
Did you know the good Duke's parting shot is the ground of many modern marriage contracts and friendships? Google says so.
Measure for Measure!
In the early summer of '76 I was dealt a mortal blow for refusing Caroline's hand. Sequestered and punished, I was down for the count.
For that day my archetypal Daemon was born. I was confirmed to be hopelessly bipolar, with no remission for the next 50 years.
The avenging furies of Hamnet - the son attacking his adoptive father - were to be transmogrified for me and likewise made savagely bitter for Shakespeare.
Both parties - father and son - inherit the Eumenides!
And as for Shakespeare, so with me - the long period of my own purgatorial madness - in my own Middle Way: the halfway point on my journey to my death, as for Hamnet's literary Dad himself, in his manneristic middle plays.
Measure for Measure is their Crowning Glory...
***
As our Golden Anniversary will be ours, for my dear wife and me.
For, 5 years ago, God wrenched me and my father FREE from our mutual Daemons...
And a year later we began to heal from our wounds:
On the fiftieth anniversary of my first breakdown.
AND 3 years from next month, my wife and I have both agreed to Renew Our Vows and our commitment to the mutual sharing of our abiding love and respect -
Measure for Measure.
After fifty faithful and very full years together.
And what is yours, MINE!
Measure for Measure
Act V, Scene 1.
(The Duke to his ladylove, Isabelle near the close)
You shall all be dealt equal Measure for Measure. What you give, that you shall receive.
Matthew 7.
When I saw this play in Stratford, Ontario with a friend of our family, Caroline - in 1975 - I was dealt a Queen of Spades, together with a King of Hearts (and I'm sure you know their respective connotations).
I was dealt the Queen that summer. I was expected to play the King shortly after, as a planned equal and rewarding measure for me, as healing compensation for my bipolar run of murderous pratfalls.
The player who dealt me those cards was attempting his variety of Fifth Business (see my review of that book) which ended for me, by the grace of God, in a purgatorial cataclysm.
I am reading, btw, in a biography of John Updike written after his death (the best one to my mind), that this epochal writer - the mirror of his times - suffered the same ceaseless pratfalls and guilty fame (again, my own Measure for Measure with my bad luck, though lucky love in the nick of time) that I have.
That's where two similarly parallel lines diverge.
I have stuck to my true serendipitous ladylove and wife for 47 years! But we all know Updike's amorous reputation 😐...
Anyway.
(Mea culpa, my beloved genius - may you rest in peace!)
***
Did you know that the Duke's parting shot to Isabelle - he will get her binding promise of a ring to curb his masculine wrath, in return for her maidenhead - is the stunning way equal measure is dealt to each by Shakespeare?
But, more importantly, it was Shakespeare's way to resolve the extreme tension of his Middle Plays through his own crowning Peace of Mind.
It all started with Hamlet - or should I say, HamNet - for that is James Joyce's rightful name for him! Was Joyce illegitimate too? Check Wiki. Probably.
Hamlet - Joyce's oedipal complex of his OWN birth, for his presumed but inappropriate father, which drove him to Ulysses' Nightworld - or Hamnet?
Both shall receive Measure for Measure.
As will I!
***
Did you know the good Duke's parting shot is the ground of many modern marriage contracts and friendships? Google says so.
Measure for Measure!
In the early summer of '76 I was dealt a mortal blow for refusing Caroline's hand. Sequestered and punished, I was down for the count.
For that day my archetypal Daemon was born. I was confirmed to be hopelessly bipolar, with no remission for the next 50 years.
The avenging furies of Hamnet - the son attacking his adoptive father - were to be transmogrified for me and likewise made savagely bitter for Shakespeare.
Both parties - father and son - inherit the Eumenides!
And as for Shakespeare, so with me - the long period of my own purgatorial madness - in my own Middle Way: the halfway point on my journey to my death, as for Hamnet's literary Dad himself, in his manneristic middle plays.
Measure for Measure is their Crowning Glory...
***
As our Golden Anniversary will be ours, for my dear wife and me.
For, 5 years ago, God wrenched me and my father FREE from our mutual Daemons...
And a year later we began to heal from our wounds:
On the fiftieth anniversary of my first breakdown.
AND 3 years from next month, my wife and I have both agreed to Renew Our Vows and our commitment to the mutual sharing of our abiding love and respect -
Measure for Measure.
After fifty faithful and very full years together.
April 20, 2022
Measure for Measure, William Shakespeare
Measure for Measure is a play by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written in 1603 or 1604.
The play's main themes include justice, "morality and mercy in Vienna," and the dichotomy between corruption and purity: "some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall." Mercy and virtue prevail, as the play does not end tragically, with virtues such as compassion and forgiveness being exercised at the end of the production. While the play focuses on justice overall, the final scene illustrates that Shakespeare intended for moral justice to temper strict civil justice: a number of the characters receive understanding and leniency, instead of the harsh punishment to which they, according to the law, could have been sentenced.
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «چشم در مقابل چشم»؛ «حکم در برابر حکم»؛ «قیاس برای قیاس»؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز شانزدهم ماه سپتامبر سال2017میلادی
عنوان: چشم در مقابل چشم؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده17م
عنوان: حکم در برابر حکم (نمایشنامه)؛ ویلیام شکسپیر؛ مترجم: علیرضا مهدیپور؛ تهران: نشر چشمه، سال1385؛ در147ص؛ شابک9786002295149؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده17م
عنوان: العین بالعین؛ تالیف ولیم شکسپیر؛ ترجمه زاخر غبریال؛ مراجعه عادل سلامه؛ تقدیم ح.و لیقر؛ کویت، سال1350؛ در358ص؛
قیاس برای قیاس (حکم در برابر حکم) نمایشنامه ای کمدی اثر «ویلیام شکسپیر» است؛ که در حدود سالهای1603میلادی تا سال1604میلادی؛ نگاشته شده است؛ مآخذ اصلی، که تغییرات فراوانی در آن داده شده، نمایشنامه «پروموس و کاساندرا» اثر «جرج وتستون»، و همچنین رمان کوتاه دیگری به نام «انحرافات اجتماعی» از همان نویسنده است؛ هر دوی این کتابها هم بر اساس داستانی از کلیات «هکاتومیتی» اثر «جرالدی سینتیو»، نویسنده ی ایتالیا است؛ تغییر اصلی در نمایشنامه «شکسپیر»، آفرینش نقش «ماریانا» است، که الگوهای موازی نمایشی ویژه ای بنا میکند؛ و همچنین استفاده از عنصر «عروس جانشین» در نمایشنامه است، که در داستانهای مردمی دوران «ملکه الیزابت» رسم بوده، و پیش از این توسط «شکسپیر» در نمایشنامه «هرچه عاقبتش خیر است، خوب است» نیز به کار گرفته شده است
چکیده: (در زمان حکومت «دوک وینچنتو»، در شهر «وین» به دلیل اهمال در اجرای قانون، بی نظمی در همه جا رخنه میکند؛ پس از آنکه اوضاع بیشتر دچار هرج و مرج میشود، دوک حاکم مهربان و نرمدل تصمیم میگیرد، مدتی شهر را ترک کند، و به قصر ییلاقی خویش در «لهستان» برود، و زمام امور را در دست دو تن از مردان بزرگ خود بگذارد: یکی قائم مقام خود، «آنجلو»، که دارای نامی بیخدشه و به سختگیری نام آور است؛ و دیگری «اسکالوس» که قانوندانی خردمند است؛ به این امید که این دو بتوانند اصلاحات اخلاقی و اجتماعی لازم را به تثبیت برسانند؛
نخستین قانونی که قائم مقام دوک با مشورت و صحه ی «اسکالوس» خردمند، برای ا��لاحات اخلاقی و اجتماعی تعیین میکند، قانون مجازات اعدام برای زنا و فسق و فجور است؛ اولین قربانی نیز، که برای نمونه متهم و دستگیر میشود، «کلادیو» است؛ نجیبزاده ای جوان، و از خانواده ی سرشناس شهر، که با «قراردادی واقعی» با دختری به نام «ژولیت» همبستر شده، و او را بچه دار کرده بود؛ شایع میشود که «کلادیو» و «ژولیت» عاشق و معشوق هم بوده اند، و طفلکها قصد داشته اند، با هم ازدواج کنند؛ فقط خانواده هایشان دربارهٔ برخی از مسائل جهیزیه و غیره مذاکرات و تصمیم گیری میکردند؛ در این گیرودار شخص دوک نیز که به نحوه ی کار دولت و وضع زندگی مردم علاقمند است به جای مسافرت به «لهستان»، در واقع پنهانی و با لباس مبدل در شهر مانده است، تا بر قانونگذاری و مدیریت قائم مقام خود نظارت کند…؛
این نمایش در پنج پرده تدوین شده و دارای هجده شخصیت، و تعدادی سیاهی لشکر است؛ شخصیتهای اصلی عبارت اند از: «وینچنتو: دوک مهربان و مثلاً فیلسوف منش وین، نجیبزادهای برای تمام فصول»؛ «آنجلو: لرد نیابت مقام حکومت در غیاب دوک وینچنتو، مقدس نمای خشک؛ نقطه مقابل و جلوه دهنده وینچنتو»؛ «کلادیو: نجیبزادهای جوان اهل وین»؛ «ایزابلا: خواهر زیبای کلادیو و در آرزوی ورود به دیر راهبان»؛ «ماریانا: تکه زمینی آسیب دیده؛ نامزد رهاشده و رقتانگیز آنجلو (وقتی جهیزیهاش رفت، شوهرش رفت)»؛ «ژولیت: نامزد کلادیو، افتادن در مسیر پر از خطاهای جوانی کارنامه حیثیت زندگی او را خدشهدار کرده بود»؛ «اسکالوس: مشاوری عاقل و سالخورده»؛ «واریوس»؛ «رئیس زندان شهر وین»؛ «البو»؛ «سینیوریتا اوردان»؛ «دلقکی به نام پومپی»؛ «لوسیو»؛ «فراث»؛ «توماس»؛ «پیتر»؛ «فرانچسکا»؛ «ابهورسون»؛ «لردها، افسران، قاضی، نگهبانان و خدمتکاران»)؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 27/03/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 30/01/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Measure for Measure is a play by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written in 1603 or 1604.
The play's main themes include justice, "morality and mercy in Vienna," and the dichotomy between corruption and purity: "some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall." Mercy and virtue prevail, as the play does not end tragically, with virtues such as compassion and forgiveness being exercised at the end of the production. While the play focuses on justice overall, the final scene illustrates that Shakespeare intended for moral justice to temper strict civil justice: a number of the characters receive understanding and leniency, instead of the harsh punishment to which they, according to the law, could have been sentenced.
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «چشم در مقابل چشم»؛ «حکم در برابر حکم»؛ «قیاس برای قیاس»؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز شانزدهم ماه سپتامبر سال2017میلادی
عنوان: چشم در مقابل چشم؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده17م
عنوان: حکم در برابر حکم (نمایشنامه)؛ ویلیام شکسپیر؛ مترجم: علیرضا مهدیپور؛ تهران: نشر چشمه، سال1385؛ در147ص؛ شابک9786002295149؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده17م
عنوان: العین بالعین؛ تالیف ولیم شکسپیر؛ ترجمه زاخر غبریال؛ مراجعه عادل سلامه؛ تقدیم ح.و لیقر؛ کویت، سال1350؛ در358ص؛
قیاس برای قیاس (حکم در برابر حکم) نمایشنامه ای کمدی اثر «ویلیام شکسپیر» است؛ که در حدود سالهای1603میلادی تا سال1604میلادی؛ نگاشته شده است؛ مآخذ اصلی، که تغییرات فراوانی در آن داده شده، نمایشنامه «پروموس و کاساندرا» اثر «جرج وتستون»، و همچنین رمان کوتاه دیگری به نام «انحرافات اجتماعی» از همان نویسنده است؛ هر دوی این کتابها هم بر اساس داستانی از کلیات «هکاتومیتی» اثر «جرالدی سینتیو»، نویسنده ی ایتالیا است؛ تغییر اصلی در نمایشنامه «شکسپیر»، آفرینش نقش «ماریانا» است، که الگوهای موازی نمایشی ویژه ای بنا میکند؛ و همچنین استفاده از عنصر «عروس جانشین» در نمایشنامه است، که در داستانهای مردمی دوران «ملکه الیزابت» رسم بوده، و پیش از این توسط «شکسپیر» در نمایشنامه «هرچه عاقبتش خیر است، خوب است» نیز به کار گرفته شده است
چکیده: (در زمان حکومت «دوک وینچنتو»، در شهر «وین» به دلیل اهمال در اجرای قانون، بی نظمی در همه جا رخنه میکند؛ پس از آنکه اوضاع بیشتر دچار هرج و مرج میشود، دوک حاکم مهربان و نرمدل تصمیم میگیرد، مدتی شهر را ترک کند، و به قصر ییلاقی خویش در «لهستان» برود، و زمام امور را در دست دو تن از مردان بزرگ خود بگذارد: یکی قائم مقام خود، «آنجلو»، که دارای نامی بیخدشه و به سختگیری نام آور است؛ و دیگری «اسکالوس» که قانوندانی خردمند است؛ به این امید که این دو بتوانند اصلاحات اخلاقی و اجتماعی لازم را به تثبیت برسانند؛
نخستین قانونی که قائم مقام دوک با مشورت و صحه ی «اسکالوس» خردمند، برای ا��لاحات اخلاقی و اجتماعی تعیین میکند، قانون مجازات اعدام برای زنا و فسق و فجور است؛ اولین قربانی نیز، که برای نمونه متهم و دستگیر میشود، «کلادیو» است؛ نجیبزاده ای جوان، و از خانواده ی سرشناس شهر، که با «قراردادی واقعی» با دختری به نام «ژولیت» همبستر شده، و او را بچه دار کرده بود؛ شایع میشود که «کلادیو» و «ژولیت» عاشق و معشوق هم بوده اند، و طفلکها قصد داشته اند، با هم ازدواج کنند؛ فقط خانواده هایشان دربارهٔ برخی از مسائل جهیزیه و غیره مذاکرات و تصمیم گیری میکردند؛ در این گیرودار شخص دوک نیز که به نحوه ی کار دولت و وضع زندگی مردم علاقمند است به جای مسافرت به «لهستان»، در واقع پنهانی و با لباس مبدل در شهر مانده است، تا بر قانونگذاری و مدیریت قائم مقام خود نظارت کند…؛
این نمایش در پنج پرده تدوین شده و دارای هجده شخصیت، و تعدادی سیاهی لشکر است؛ شخصیتهای اصلی عبارت اند از: «وینچنتو: دوک مهربان و مثلاً فیلسوف منش وین، نجیبزادهای برای تمام فصول»؛ «آنجلو: لرد نیابت مقام حکومت در غیاب دوک وینچنتو، مقدس نمای خشک؛ نقطه مقابل و جلوه دهنده وینچنتو»؛ «کلادیو: نجیبزادهای جوان اهل وین»؛ «ایزابلا: خواهر زیبای کلادیو و در آرزوی ورود به دیر راهبان»؛ «ماریانا: تکه زمینی آسیب دیده؛ نامزد رهاشده و رقتانگیز آنجلو (وقتی جهیزیهاش رفت، شوهرش رفت)»؛ «ژولیت: نامزد کلادیو، افتادن در مسیر پر از خطاهای جوانی کارنامه حیثیت زندگی او را خدشهدار کرده بود»؛ «اسکالوس: مشاوری عاقل و سالخورده»؛ «واریوس»؛ «رئیس زندان شهر وین»؛ «البو»؛ «سینیوریتا اوردان»؛ «دلقکی به نام پومپی»؛ «لوسیو»؛ «فراث»؛ «توماس»؛ «پیتر»؛ «فرانچسکا»؛ «ابهورسون»؛ «لردها، افسران، قاضی، نگهبانان و خدمتکاران»)؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 27/03/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 30/01/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
June 23, 2021
حوار ممتع في مسرحية يعرض فيها شكسبير تساؤلات ما زالت مثيرة للاهتمام
أيهم أفضل في مقام الحكم على الآخرين, هل الحكمة والرحمة أم العدل
هل الفضائل التي يلتزم بها الانسان ترجع لإيمانه بها فعلا أم مجرد خوف وأحيانا مُراءاة
الضعف الانساني وتناقضات النفس, وتأثيرهم على المشاعر والتصرفات
شخصية أنجلو نائب حاكم فيينا هي الشخصية الأكثر حضورا في المسرحية
رجل قوي صارم في تطبيق العقوبات, ومع ذلك يرغب في فعل ما يرفضه ويُدينه في العلن
" ألا ما أكثر ما يبطن الانسان من الشر وإن ظهر في ثياب الملائكة"..
أيهم أفضل في مقام الحكم على الآخرين, هل الحكمة والرحمة أم العدل
هل الفضائل التي يلتزم بها الانسان ترجع لإيمانه بها فعلا أم مجرد خوف وأحيانا مُراءاة
الضعف الانساني وتناقضات النفس, وتأثيرهم على المشاعر والتصرفات
شخصية أنجلو نائب حاكم فيينا هي الشخصية الأكثر حضورا في المسرحية
رجل قوي صارم في تطبيق العقوبات, ومع ذلك يرغب في فعل ما يرفضه ويُدينه في العلن
" ألا ما أكثر ما يبطن الانسان من الشر وإن ظهر في ثياب الملائكة"..
September 21, 2017
Book Review
3 out of 5 stars to Measure for Measure, written in 1603 by William Shakespeare. When I think of reasons why people find Shakespeare difficult to read or understand, this is the play that most comes to mind. It's a good play. But you won't get much from it on a single read. And if you're not a fan of classic literature, or easily able to understand language differences from 400 years ago, it will be even harder to digest this one. Part of me believes this isn't all that different from some of the popular ones, but because it's often less read, copied or produced on TV or Film, it's much less understood. The plot is clever: a man gives up his position of power to the next in command and watches from afar to see what happens. He's got personal reasons for abandoning his role, but he also doesn't quite leave it. You're left with a quandary both in plot and in persona, which makes it harder to easily grasp on the first round. I basically understood it but didn't find it all that appealing. On a second read, it was better. I may go for a third this summer. Who's in??? LOL
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
3 out of 5 stars to Measure for Measure, written in 1603 by William Shakespeare. When I think of reasons why people find Shakespeare difficult to read or understand, this is the play that most comes to mind. It's a good play. But you won't get much from it on a single read. And if you're not a fan of classic literature, or easily able to understand language differences from 400 years ago, it will be even harder to digest this one. Part of me believes this isn't all that different from some of the popular ones, but because it's often less read, copied or produced on TV or Film, it's much less understood. The plot is clever: a man gives up his position of power to the next in command and watches from afar to see what happens. He's got personal reasons for abandoning his role, but he also doesn't quite leave it. You're left with a quandary both in plot and in persona, which makes it harder to easily grasp on the first round. I basically understood it but didn't find it all that appealing. On a second read, it was better. I may go for a third this summer. Who's in??? LOL
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
June 25, 2024
A piece that, therefore, addresses the issues of justice, power, and relationships of domination. What is justice, and should it be applied strictly or not? Who has the right to render justice, the human being, what he is, that is, fallible? Who has the right to govern others? And why does the Duke put Angelo to the test not to go into generalities? But, at the same time, for all the city's inhabitants, why does he want to do justice to Mariana? Claudio is considered condemnable for having slept with his fiancée but not Mariana. She did the same thing (at the Duke's instigation, which is even better) when he broke his engagement. Why does Lucio, who certainly has something to blame himself for, alone bear the costs of the Duke's justice? And what is this way of spying on everyone, pretending not to exercise power anymore? Why does the Duke ask (if you can call it asking because it sounds more like an order) in marriage to one of the young women at the end? We could go on like this for hours.
The ambiguities of the play are also those of the characters. You have understood that the Duke was very suspicious. However, Angelo is a two-faced character who oddly finds his mirror in Isabella. Both fight against human nature and violently suppress their libido; Angelo will not stand the test. As for Isabella, who launches with aplomb to nail you on the spot, "Die my brother!" because she doesn't want to give in to Angelo to preserve her honor. She doesn't care much about Mariana's honor. Well, it should be Mariana who dishonors herself rather than herself! And to find dubious reasons, with the Duke's help(ah, that one!), Mariana is innocent of any sin and wrongdoing by law. And so on, because everyone is more or less suspicious in this room.
It's a shame that the construction of the whole thing is a bit shaky, as has been noted a lot, and in particular, the comic scenes are so heavy. It reminds me of American films, such as Your Majesty or Woody Allen's War and Love, combining downright intellectual winks and a heavy heaviness in a particular form of humor. In Measure for Measure, the comedy focuses on puns, most often hyper-salacious, intervening between more brutal scenes and during these same scenes. Well, let's say it's not my cup of tea.
Measure for Measure is a very ironic title since the Duke's shenanigans lead us to double standards of justice. This work is a play that does not look so much like social or political criticism. However, Shakespeare keeps a reasonable distance from his characters and never reveals a point of view or a moral that would belong to the author. Instead, he chose to show us, in a curious place, into an abyss, characters and a city in the grip of a political and judicial system that also preys on a morality (personal or collective) of extreme shyness and ambiguity. This work is probably not Shakespeare's most enjoyable play to read. How it was written is not necessarily as exciting as the questions it raises. However, it is undoubtedly an eminently problematic piece beyond its name of "problem comedy" in its strictest sense.
The ambiguities of the play are also those of the characters. You have understood that the Duke was very suspicious. However, Angelo is a two-faced character who oddly finds his mirror in Isabella. Both fight against human nature and violently suppress their libido; Angelo will not stand the test. As for Isabella, who launches with aplomb to nail you on the spot, "Die my brother!" because she doesn't want to give in to Angelo to preserve her honor. She doesn't care much about Mariana's honor. Well, it should be Mariana who dishonors herself rather than herself! And to find dubious reasons, with the Duke's help(ah, that one!), Mariana is innocent of any sin and wrongdoing by law. And so on, because everyone is more or less suspicious in this room.
It's a shame that the construction of the whole thing is a bit shaky, as has been noted a lot, and in particular, the comic scenes are so heavy. It reminds me of American films, such as Your Majesty or Woody Allen's War and Love, combining downright intellectual winks and a heavy heaviness in a particular form of humor. In Measure for Measure, the comedy focuses on puns, most often hyper-salacious, intervening between more brutal scenes and during these same scenes. Well, let's say it's not my cup of tea.
Measure for Measure is a very ironic title since the Duke's shenanigans lead us to double standards of justice. This work is a play that does not look so much like social or political criticism. However, Shakespeare keeps a reasonable distance from his characters and never reveals a point of view or a moral that would belong to the author. Instead, he chose to show us, in a curious place, into an abyss, characters and a city in the grip of a political and judicial system that also preys on a morality (personal or collective) of extreme shyness and ambiguity. This work is probably not Shakespeare's most enjoyable play to read. How it was written is not necessarily as exciting as the questions it raises. However, it is undoubtedly an eminently problematic piece beyond its name of "problem comedy" in its strictest sense.
February 22, 2016
I struggled with this, big time. But, when I read it for a second time I began to see how it all fit together. Then I went for a third attempt, and saw something else entirely. There are always different layers of meaning in Shakespeare’s work, and it’s always quite hard to make a solid interpretation. Someone out there will argue against what you are saying, and rightly so because who is to say where the true meaning of a piece of literature is? Not me, that’s for sure, all I can do is try to form my own lasting impression of a work.
And the impression this formed on me was quite solid, to my mind. The evidence resides in the title of the play and its origins. Measure for Measure implies that what you give, you take back. If you exact a judgement or a sense of justice then you, too, are susceptible to that same force. Indeed, this quote from the bible evidently inspired this remarkable play:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with that judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured unto you again." (Matthew Chapter 7: Verse2)
Angelo is given the Duke of Vienna’s political powers whilst he supposedly goes on holiday to Poland. He immediately attempts to restore order to the city. But, he becomes a hypocrite: he is too worthy of judgement.
And the impression this formed on me was quite solid, to my mind. The evidence resides in the title of the play and its origins. Measure for Measure implies that what you give, you take back. If you exact a judgement or a sense of justice then you, too, are susceptible to that same force. Indeed, this quote from the bible evidently inspired this remarkable play:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with that judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured unto you again." (Matthew Chapter 7: Verse2)
Angelo is given the Duke of Vienna’s political powers whilst he supposedly goes on holiday to Poland. He immediately attempts to restore order to the city. But, he becomes a hypocrite: he is too worthy of judgement.
December 22, 2022
"حكم مكنيد تا بر شما حكم نشود.زيرا بدان طريقى كه حكم كنيد بر شما نيز حكم خواهد شد وبدان پيمانه اى كه پيماييد براى شما خواهند پيمود وچون است كه خس را در چشم برادر خود مى بينى وچوبى را كه در چشم خود دارى نمى بينى؟"
قسمتى از انجيل متى كه شكسپير عنوان اين نمايشنامه را از آن گرفت و در آن به تفاوت كردار و گفتار انسان در مقام قاضى يا هر انسانى كه بر مسند قصاوت تكيه دارد اشاره دارد.
زمانى كه انسان پندارىْ با شهوت و نفس شيطانى دارد و گفتار واعمالى رياگونه و
و كردارى حيوانى ودور از شرافت
قسمتى از انجيل متى كه شكسپير عنوان اين نمايشنامه را از آن گرفت و در آن به تفاوت كردار و گفتار انسان در مقام قاضى يا هر انسانى كه بر مسند قصاوت تكيه دارد اشاره دارد.
زمانى كه انسان پندارىْ با شهوت و نفس شيطانى دارد و گفتار واعمالى رياگونه و
و كردارى حيوانى ودور از شرافت
November 11, 2023
This might be my new favorite Shakespeare play. It's nowhere near perfect but in all of Shakespeare's canon, I feel like this play (for its elaboration of misogyny and the abuse of power) is the most relevant out of the bunch. It is absolutely chilling to read some of the scenes in here, look at the reception history (especially what reviewers throughout the centuries have thought of the female characters in this play) and just shake your head at the cruelty of the human race.
Measure for Measure is a so-called "problem play", which means that Willy kind of fucked up writing a comedy and shit got way too dark way too quick. But no, for real, it means that this play features many of the characteristics that most of Willy's comedies have (witty banter, problems that get resolved without someone dying, a happy ending that usually involves some sort of marriage) but still, the themes are so dark that you cannot really call it a comedy.
In Measure for Measure Vincentio, the Duke of Vienna, decides to leave the government of the city in the hands of the strict judge, Angelo. Vincentio realised that in the 14 years that he has been in power, the city has fallen into crime and filth. Brothels are everywhere, criminals and prostitutes are everywhere ... and Vincentio thinks that a firmer hand than his is needed. But instead of letting Angelo do his thing, he decides to pose as a friar and keep him in check. Angelo takes his job very seriously and enforces a lot of strict laws, one of which punished men to death that have gotten women pregnant who aren't their wives. One of these men is Claudio, a young gentleman, who is in love with his (not-wife) Juliet. When Claudio is sentenced to death, his sister Isabella tries to move Angelo to refrain from punishing her brother.
What then ensues is one of the most frightening and most chilling scenes in all of Shakespeare's canon. The first time Isabella talks with Angelo, she is accompanied by other gentlemen, and Angelo tells her to come back later. Alone. When the two of them are alone, Angelo threatens Isabella by telling her that he will only release her brother, if she will sleep with him. Isabella, who is also a novice, is disgusted by Angelo's proposal and rejects him with very harsh words. When Angelo won't stop lusting after her, she threatens him by telling him that she will expose his disgusting behaviour to the world. Angelo's response is so realistic, and therefore so frightening. He tells her that no one would believe her, because his status and power is too big. He's a well respected citizen and his word weighs more than hers. Isabella is crushed but manages to get away from Angelo.
When she tells her brother about this, (brace yourself!) her brother demands of her that she should sleep with Angelo to save him. When I read that I actually couldn't believe my eyes. I don't know what type of coward and shit person you must be to demand of your sister that she lets herself be raped by your jailer ... but you do you, Claudio, you ain't worth shit. Isabella (who is literally the light of my life and the most interesting female character in Shakespeare's canon) stays strong in that situation and tells her brother that she is unable to save him and that she is disappointed in him. I found it so chilling to read that many reviewers of this play don't like Isabella as a character because they think she should've slept with Angelo. I'm just ... I cannot even. On top of that, I really hate the big deal that is made out of Isabella's virginity. As if Angelo's threat would've been more appropriate had the woman been already sexually active. It's just disgusting.
Measure for Measure is one of the only Shakespeare plays where I'll excuse the so-called bed trick. It's a plot device that I usually absolutely condemn because it's basically rape in disguise, as two characters plot to trick another character into believing they are sleeping with person A, when in fact they are sleeping with person B. It's disgusting and not a good look. Nonetheless, I found the bed trick to be a good plot device for this particular play because A) it was a good way to make Angelo taste a bit of his own medicine because Isabella and Angelo's would-be-wife Mariana (whom he left hanging after her dowry was lost) switch places so that Mariana actually sleeps with Angelo (something she wants to do to consummate their marriage), while also saving Isabella's brother and B) it reveals even more of Angelo's ugly character because after he slept with Mariana (whom he believed to be Isabella) he actually orders the execution of Claudio to proceed. So, even if Isabella had slept with him, she wouldn't have been able to save her brother. I absolutely love that Shakespeare put that in here because it overrides any argumentation in which Isabella "should have" slept with Angelo.
This whole plot makes me so angry. And that's why I love it so much at the same time. It's such a good illustration of what is still wrong in our society today; that people with a lot of power can basically get away with anything since status and money are the keys to the world. It's frustrating. It's infuriating.
Another thing that I found extremely interesting is that at the end of the play, after Mariana marries Angelo (the Duke actually wanted to execute him ... which I was all for tbh but alas, but since this is a "comedy" Mariana begged him for forgiveness because she "loves" Angelo ... I could write a whole essay about these angelic female characters in Shakespeare‘s plays and how so many women end up with rapists and shitty men and yet it's celebrated as a success and happy ending, whatever), the Duke actually proposes to Isabella of all people. And then the play just cuts off. Shakespeare didn't even bother with providing us with Isabella's reaction. He probably just assumed that it was implicated in the Duke's proposal that Isabella would say yes and that she would be overcome with joy. MY ASS. I cannot believe it. But since this is an open ending, I am free to come up with my own interpretation: Isabella would've 100% rejected his ass. She has never shown interest in marriage, she wants to become a member of the order, throughout the play she has seen the nasty side of the Duke's character. No way in hell would that woman have accepted his wonky ass proposal. Don't try to convince me otherwise.
So, at the end of this review, all there's left to say is: Isabella, I would die for you. You deserve so much better.
Measure for Measure is a so-called "problem play", which means that Willy kind of fucked up writing a comedy and shit got way too dark way too quick. But no, for real, it means that this play features many of the characteristics that most of Willy's comedies have (witty banter, problems that get resolved without someone dying, a happy ending that usually involves some sort of marriage) but still, the themes are so dark that you cannot really call it a comedy.
In Measure for Measure Vincentio, the Duke of Vienna, decides to leave the government of the city in the hands of the strict judge, Angelo. Vincentio realised that in the 14 years that he has been in power, the city has fallen into crime and filth. Brothels are everywhere, criminals and prostitutes are everywhere ... and Vincentio thinks that a firmer hand than his is needed. But instead of letting Angelo do his thing, he decides to pose as a friar and keep him in check. Angelo takes his job very seriously and enforces a lot of strict laws, one of which punished men to death that have gotten women pregnant who aren't their wives. One of these men is Claudio, a young gentleman, who is in love with his (not-wife) Juliet. When Claudio is sentenced to death, his sister Isabella tries to move Angelo to refrain from punishing her brother.
What then ensues is one of the most frightening and most chilling scenes in all of Shakespeare's canon. The first time Isabella talks with Angelo, she is accompanied by other gentlemen, and Angelo tells her to come back later. Alone. When the two of them are alone, Angelo threatens Isabella by telling her that he will only release her brother, if she will sleep with him. Isabella, who is also a novice, is disgusted by Angelo's proposal and rejects him with very harsh words. When Angelo won't stop lusting after her, she threatens him by telling him that she will expose his disgusting behaviour to the world. Angelo's response is so realistic, and therefore so frightening. He tells her that no one would believe her, because his status and power is too big. He's a well respected citizen and his word weighs more than hers. Isabella is crushed but manages to get away from Angelo.
When she tells her brother about this, (brace yourself!) her brother demands of her that she should sleep with Angelo to save him. When I read that I actually couldn't believe my eyes. I don't know what type of coward and shit person you must be to demand of your sister that she lets herself be raped by your jailer ... but you do you, Claudio, you ain't worth shit. Isabella (who is literally the light of my life and the most interesting female character in Shakespeare's canon) stays strong in that situation and tells her brother that she is unable to save him and that she is disappointed in him. I found it so chilling to read that many reviewers of this play don't like Isabella as a character because they think she should've slept with Angelo. I'm just ... I cannot even. On top of that, I really hate the big deal that is made out of Isabella's virginity. As if Angelo's threat would've been more appropriate had the woman been already sexually active. It's just disgusting.
Measure for Measure is one of the only Shakespeare plays where I'll excuse the so-called bed trick. It's a plot device that I usually absolutely condemn because it's basically rape in disguise, as two characters plot to trick another character into believing they are sleeping with person A, when in fact they are sleeping with person B. It's disgusting and not a good look. Nonetheless, I found the bed trick to be a good plot device for this particular play because A) it was a good way to make Angelo taste a bit of his own medicine because Isabella and Angelo's would-be-wife Mariana (whom he left hanging after her dowry was lost) switch places so that Mariana actually sleeps with Angelo (something she wants to do to consummate their marriage), while also saving Isabella's brother and B) it reveals even more of Angelo's ugly character because after he slept with Mariana (whom he believed to be Isabella) he actually orders the execution of Claudio to proceed. So, even if Isabella had slept with him, she wouldn't have been able to save her brother. I absolutely love that Shakespeare put that in here because it overrides any argumentation in which Isabella "should have" slept with Angelo.
This whole plot makes me so angry. And that's why I love it so much at the same time. It's such a good illustration of what is still wrong in our society today; that people with a lot of power can basically get away with anything since status and money are the keys to the world. It's frustrating. It's infuriating.
Another thing that I found extremely interesting is that at the end of the play, after Mariana marries Angelo (the Duke actually wanted to execute him ... which I was all for tbh but alas, but since this is a "comedy" Mariana begged him for forgiveness because she "loves" Angelo ... I could write a whole essay about these angelic female characters in Shakespeare‘s plays and how so many women end up with rapists and shitty men and yet it's celebrated as a success and happy ending, whatever), the Duke actually proposes to Isabella of all people. And then the play just cuts off. Shakespeare didn't even bother with providing us with Isabella's reaction. He probably just assumed that it was implicated in the Duke's proposal that Isabella would say yes and that she would be overcome with joy. MY ASS. I cannot believe it. But since this is an open ending, I am free to come up with my own interpretation: Isabella would've 100% rejected his ass. She has never shown interest in marriage, she wants to become a member of the order, throughout the play she has seen the nasty side of the Duke's character. No way in hell would that woman have accepted his wonky ass proposal. Don't try to convince me otherwise.
So, at the end of this review, all there's left to say is: Isabella, I would die for you. You deserve so much better.
August 25, 2017
Read for school
Not my favourite, but still enjoyable!
Not my favourite, but still enjoyable!
Read
May 6, 2019shakespeare writing about sin and vice and hypocrisy but setting it in Vienna so Queen Lizzie doesn't come down too hard on him, iconic.
January 21, 2020
I loved Isabella’s character and how she handled everything thrown her way. You could tell she desperately wanted to save her brother but didn’t want to stoop to the corrupt official’s agreement. The themes of law, justice, mercy, forgiveness, hypocrisy and corruption were very well handled here and are still so relevant in this day and age. I didn’t really care about the side characters and whatever they were wittering on about in their scenes, but it was tolerable. The duke did prattle on for quite a bit at the end, but it was such an intriguing problem presented and run through, that I had to keep reading! A very thought-provoking play.
This review and others can originally be found on Olivia's Catastrophe: https://oliviascatastrophe.com/2020/0...
This review and others can originally be found on Olivia's Catastrophe: https://oliviascatastrophe.com/2020/0...
September 6, 2020
How to describe ‘Measure for Measure?’ It's certainly one of Shakespeare's more ambiguous outings but I love its strangeness and twisted moral message, where the majority of the characters marry at the play's end as a form of punishment for their beliefs and actions. Happiness is a strange bedfellow in this so-called comedy.
September 7, 2017
“Alack, when once our grace we have forgot,
Nothing goes right; we would and we would not.”
― William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
Let me start this review with a personal bias -- I PREFER it when politicos pretend to be priests, rather than when priests pretend to be politicos. Apparently, Shakespeare is on MY side. "Measure for Measure" is one of Shakespeare's "dark comedies" or "problem plays" like Troilus and Cressida and All's Well That Ends Well. It is certainly dark. It could easily be a funky beer or dark chocolate xocolātl. It feels like Shakespeare has reached that point of his career/life where he just doesn't give an F. He is all elbows and any need to surrender to societal platitudes and moral veneer seem to be fully expunged. He is all about tearing off the scabs of hypocrisy, and popping the boils of false prophets. But as with most of Shakespeare's best, nothing is direct, everything is oblique. Truth comes at you sideways, and even when you catch it, you have to be careful it isn't going to explode.
Oh, oh, also, the names. Mistress Overdone? Pompey Bum? So perfect.
There is a line I love from Philip K Dick that says, “It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.” Shakespeare seems to agree, but it seems the most sane person in "Measure for Measure", the one most adjusted to Shakespeare's Vienna is Barnardine, the ever drunk. So, perhaps, we can re-write PKD's quote (at least remeasure it to read: It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to get sloppy-ass drunk"). In a world where everyone seems to be concerned about death, justice, confinement, authority, sexuality, Barnardine, like Honeybadger, just don't give a shit. I feel you Barnardine. I feel you.
Anyway, the play is unsettling. Shakespeare even makes the play's "happy ending" seem a bit dirty, like climbing out of a polluted pool. There isn't a moist towelette large enough to clean the soiled linen of Vienna. This is a play that, with the right characters, the right amount of alcohol could possibly start a riot. It pushes everyone right to the end and then yanks you back, not to "save you" but to keep the audience unbalanced. While it shares little directly with Crime and Punishment (except for, well, a crime and a punishment), I did keep getting images of Dostoevsky in my head while reading this. Shakespeare isn't as serious as Dostoevsky, but with an absurdity and dark, gallows humor, Shakespeare's Measure for Measure seems just as dangerous as anything Dostoevsky later delivered.
So, perhaps, I'll end with another Dostoevsky thought. Like Hesse's warning to readers of Dostoevsky, I too caution that looking too deep into Shakespeare's problem plays gives the reader both a taste of Western Civilization's decadent decline, and a "glimpse into the havoc". Bottoms up Biatches!
Favorite lines:
― “I had as lief have the foppery of freedom as the morality of imprisonment.” (Act 1, Scene 2).
― “Our doubts are traitors,
and make us lose the good we oft might win,
by fearing to attempt.” (Act 1, Scene 4).
― “But man, proud man,
Dress'd in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd—
His glassy essence—like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.” (Act 2, Scene 2).
― “The miserable have no other medicine
But only hope:
I have hope to live, and am prepared to die.” (Act 3, Scene 1).
― “To sue to live, I find I seek to die;
And, seeking death, find life.” (Act 3, Scene 1).
Nothing goes right; we would and we would not.”
― William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
Let me start this review with a personal bias -- I PREFER it when politicos pretend to be priests, rather than when priests pretend to be politicos. Apparently, Shakespeare is on MY side. "Measure for Measure" is one of Shakespeare's "dark comedies" or "problem plays" like Troilus and Cressida and All's Well That Ends Well. It is certainly dark. It could easily be a funky beer or dark chocolate xocolātl. It feels like Shakespeare has reached that point of his career/life where he just doesn't give an F. He is all elbows and any need to surrender to societal platitudes and moral veneer seem to be fully expunged. He is all about tearing off the scabs of hypocrisy, and popping the boils of false prophets. But as with most of Shakespeare's best, nothing is direct, everything is oblique. Truth comes at you sideways, and even when you catch it, you have to be careful it isn't going to explode.
Oh, oh, also, the names. Mistress Overdone? Pompey Bum? So perfect.
There is a line I love from Philip K Dick that says, “It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.” Shakespeare seems to agree, but it seems the most sane person in "Measure for Measure", the one most adjusted to Shakespeare's Vienna is Barnardine, the ever drunk. So, perhaps, we can re-write PKD's quote (at least remeasure it to read: It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to get sloppy-ass drunk"). In a world where everyone seems to be concerned about death, justice, confinement, authority, sexuality, Barnardine, like Honeybadger, just don't give a shit. I feel you Barnardine. I feel you.
Anyway, the play is unsettling. Shakespeare even makes the play's "happy ending" seem a bit dirty, like climbing out of a polluted pool. There isn't a moist towelette large enough to clean the soiled linen of Vienna. This is a play that, with the right characters, the right amount of alcohol could possibly start a riot. It pushes everyone right to the end and then yanks you back, not to "save you" but to keep the audience unbalanced. While it shares little directly with Crime and Punishment (except for, well, a crime and a punishment), I did keep getting images of Dostoevsky in my head while reading this. Shakespeare isn't as serious as Dostoevsky, but with an absurdity and dark, gallows humor, Shakespeare's Measure for Measure seems just as dangerous as anything Dostoevsky later delivered.
So, perhaps, I'll end with another Dostoevsky thought. Like Hesse's warning to readers of Dostoevsky, I too caution that looking too deep into Shakespeare's problem plays gives the reader both a taste of Western Civilization's decadent decline, and a "glimpse into the havoc". Bottoms up Biatches!
Favorite lines:
― “I had as lief have the foppery of freedom as the morality of imprisonment.” (Act 1, Scene 2).
― “Our doubts are traitors,
and make us lose the good we oft might win,
by fearing to attempt.” (Act 1, Scene 4).
― “But man, proud man,
Dress'd in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd—
His glassy essence—like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.” (Act 2, Scene 2).
― “The miserable have no other medicine
But only hope:
I have hope to live, and am prepared to die.” (Act 3, Scene 1).
― “To sue to live, I find I seek to die;
And, seeking death, find life.” (Act 3, Scene 1).
June 28, 2011
This is a much more troubling play than a comedy really has a right to be. To be honest, it is very hard to call this play a ‘comedy’ – unlike Much Ado or Twelfth Night, the laughs don’t exactly come thick and fast. In general outline this could easily enough be considered a romantic comedy – girl in trouble, boy cleverly rescues girl, girl marries boy; a perfect description of the genre? But the central story to this one is a very strange idea for a comedy.
Here’s the main story-line with the incidental stories and characters cut. There is a Duke of Vienna that seems to be well loved by his people, though mostly because he is fairly hopeless at keeping the moral order of the place. He knows things have got to get cleaned up, but also seems to know he isn’t really the man to do it. There is a young man he plans to allow to fix things, Angelo, who, despite his show of goodness, the Duke knows isn’t nearly as virtuous as he makes himself out to be. Nevertheless, the Duke believes he probably has what it would take to get rid of most of the immorality that’s going on about the place (read, brothels and sexual excesses). The Duke says he is off to Poland, but instead he gets dressed up as a Friar so he can watch just what Angelo does in his absence.
The first thing Angelo does is find someone to use to punish as an example of immorality. There is a law, never previously applied, that if you get someone pregnant prior to marriage then you forfeit your life. Claudio and Juliet have (as Iago would have it) made the two-backed beast and so Angelo sentences Claudio to death in the morning (everything is to happen quickly in this play – even if nothing ever seems to prove to).
Claudio has a sister, Isabella – she is a nun in training and when told of her brother’s fate goes around to see if she can convince Angelo not to kill Claudio. Angelo at first is unmoved by Isabella, but soon decides this innocent virgin is a temptation too great to be resisted. He tells her that he will save her brother’s life if she agrees to sleep with him. She refuses – as all good nuns should – and goes to tell her brother that he had better prepare for his forthcoming trip to meet his maker.
At first Claudio is suitably revolted by Angelo’s suggestion, but then the full implications of Isabella’s refusal to sleep with Angelo (that is, his own death) suddenly makes him think that in the balance of things – well… Isabella sees where all this is headed and is outraged and tells him again to prepare to die.
But the Duke, dressed as the Friar, has been listening to all this and decides it is time to come to the rescue – but not in the most obvious way, but saying ‘tat-tah! It was me all the time’. Rather, he decides to set up a complicated and, well, frankly dangerous set of schemes in order to trick Angelo.
It turns out that Angelo had been engaged to a woman a couple of years before and was about to marry her when her brother was lost at sea and her family wealth went down with him. Angelo promptly broke off the engagement. The Duke decides to get this woman to sleep with Angelo in Isabella’s stead – so, Isabella tells Angelo she will sleep with him as long as it is in the dark and in total silence. The switch is made and Isabella’s virtue is secured by the Duke and all’s well. Except Angelo goes back on his word about Claudio – on the very reasonable assumption that although Claudio may well be happy as Larry to not be dead for the time being, sooner or later he is going to want to be revenged on Angelo for his shagging his sister and threatening to kill him. Angelo demands Claudio’s immediate execution. The Duke is less than impressed and so needs to do some fancy footwork to save Claudio’s life and also supply a decapitated head for Angelo.
The Duke then announces he is on his way home – and arrives at the town saying that if anyone has any complaints they should come forward with them then and there – he has set up Isabella to denounce Angelo and say what happened in front of everyone, which she does. Angelo has a very uncomfortable time of it, but appears to have the Duke’s unequivocal support. But things turn bad for him when his ex turns up and says she was the one who had slept with him, and not Isabella – things become even worse when it turns out that the Duke and the Friar are one and the same people. Angelo confesses and pleads to be killed. The Duke first forces him to marry your woman he was supposed to have married years before and then says he is to be executed. The new bride isn’t exactly over the moon at the prospect of becoming a widow quite so soon – and pleads first with the Duke and then with Isabella to help her convince the Duke to save Angelo’s life.
Isabella kneels down – now, look, I’m a complete sucker generally for unreasonable forgiveness (the fact it is the main lesson of Christianity is also probably part of the reason it is generally ignored by most Christians, but the whole ‘love thine enemy’ idea – particularly when such forgiveness seems utterly impossible and improbable – almost always leaves me on the verge of tears). The Duke then pulls Claudio out of the hat and asks Isabella to marry him – which she agrees to do. They all live happily ever after.
I guess now you can see why it is hard to really call this infinitely complicated plot a comedy. The other thing is that a lot of the ‘morality’ of this play is really very questionable and requires much more thought than is reasonable for a comedy. And not just the morally questionable idea of getting Angelo to sleep with is ex as a way to confound his plans to sleep with Isabella – what was his ex thinking? How would anyone feel at being asked to do such a thing – you’ll get to sleep with the guy you love, but he will think he is sleeping with someone else. Yuck. But the final forgiveness of Angelo for what was his intended rape and murder seems, well, rather mild for what might otherwise be considered a couple of rather serious and career-limiting mistakes.
Like I said, I really do get choked up when someone does an act of infinite forgiveness – as Isabella does in the final scene, except even this scene is very odd. I’m going to quote the speech she gives in full:
Duke: He dies for Claudio’s death.
Isabella: (kneeling) Most bounteous sir,
Look, if it please you, on this man condemned
As if my brother lived. I partly think
A due sincerity governed his deeds
Till he did look on me. Since it is so,
Let him not die. My brother had but justice,
In that he did the thing for which he died.
For Angelo,
His act did not o’ertake his bad intent,
And must be buried but as an intent
That perished by the way. Thoughts are no subjects,
Intents but merely thoughts.
Which is to say – Angelo was a fine and upstanding young man until he looked at me and then, well, how could he help but be driven mad with lust? I’m a bit of a babe in this habit, you know. We fooled him, so he didn’t do what he thought he was going to do – sleeping with this woman rather than me. We can only be condemned for what we do, not what we intend to do, so you can’t kill him on that score. All that is left is that he killed my brother, but then, look, my brother had broken the law, so had it coming anyway.
I really don’t think I would like to have Isabella as my sister, to be honest.
This is a remarkable play. And although I think the plot is so convoluted that there are times it really does strain to keep itself together, the moral dilemmas of some of the characters really do bring us up short at times. Angelo’s self-torment – quite the opposite of what everyone else sees of him – is damned interesting.
There has been lots of talk in the press lately about the slut walks – I’m quite in favour of them (I’ve a preference for dealing with complex issues with both humour and irony if at all possible). However, if anything would prove to that Canadian policeman that ‘if women don’t want to be violated they shouldn’t dress like sluts’ is utter bollocks it is Angelo lusting after Isabella because she is tempting him with her utter purity.
There aren’t really any characters in this play that you can like, either. The Duke seems to have done that favourite Machiavellian ploy of leaving someone unpopular to do the dirty work and then, in exposing his dirty work, gained the benefit of the dirty work while avoiding all of the blame.
Although we might well today disagree with Isabella’s view that her hymen is worth more than her brother’s life – you do need to remember she believed the choice wasn’t just her virginity, but her immortal soul. Nevertheless, she isn’t all that much more forgiving of her brother than Angelo is and so her moral strictness is frankly scary.
Even with all that said, this is an endlessly fascinating play. One that raises lots of questions and presents answers from the characters words and actions that only prompt further thought.
Here’s the main story-line with the incidental stories and characters cut. There is a Duke of Vienna that seems to be well loved by his people, though mostly because he is fairly hopeless at keeping the moral order of the place. He knows things have got to get cleaned up, but also seems to know he isn’t really the man to do it. There is a young man he plans to allow to fix things, Angelo, who, despite his show of goodness, the Duke knows isn’t nearly as virtuous as he makes himself out to be. Nevertheless, the Duke believes he probably has what it would take to get rid of most of the immorality that’s going on about the place (read, brothels and sexual excesses). The Duke says he is off to Poland, but instead he gets dressed up as a Friar so he can watch just what Angelo does in his absence.
The first thing Angelo does is find someone to use to punish as an example of immorality. There is a law, never previously applied, that if you get someone pregnant prior to marriage then you forfeit your life. Claudio and Juliet have (as Iago would have it) made the two-backed beast and so Angelo sentences Claudio to death in the morning (everything is to happen quickly in this play – even if nothing ever seems to prove to).
Claudio has a sister, Isabella – she is a nun in training and when told of her brother’s fate goes around to see if she can convince Angelo not to kill Claudio. Angelo at first is unmoved by Isabella, but soon decides this innocent virgin is a temptation too great to be resisted. He tells her that he will save her brother’s life if she agrees to sleep with him. She refuses – as all good nuns should – and goes to tell her brother that he had better prepare for his forthcoming trip to meet his maker.
At first Claudio is suitably revolted by Angelo’s suggestion, but then the full implications of Isabella’s refusal to sleep with Angelo (that is, his own death) suddenly makes him think that in the balance of things – well… Isabella sees where all this is headed and is outraged and tells him again to prepare to die.
But the Duke, dressed as the Friar, has been listening to all this and decides it is time to come to the rescue – but not in the most obvious way, but saying ‘tat-tah! It was me all the time’. Rather, he decides to set up a complicated and, well, frankly dangerous set of schemes in order to trick Angelo.
It turns out that Angelo had been engaged to a woman a couple of years before and was about to marry her when her brother was lost at sea and her family wealth went down with him. Angelo promptly broke off the engagement. The Duke decides to get this woman to sleep with Angelo in Isabella’s stead – so, Isabella tells Angelo she will sleep with him as long as it is in the dark and in total silence. The switch is made and Isabella’s virtue is secured by the Duke and all’s well. Except Angelo goes back on his word about Claudio – on the very reasonable assumption that although Claudio may well be happy as Larry to not be dead for the time being, sooner or later he is going to want to be revenged on Angelo for his shagging his sister and threatening to kill him. Angelo demands Claudio’s immediate execution. The Duke is less than impressed and so needs to do some fancy footwork to save Claudio’s life and also supply a decapitated head for Angelo.
The Duke then announces he is on his way home – and arrives at the town saying that if anyone has any complaints they should come forward with them then and there – he has set up Isabella to denounce Angelo and say what happened in front of everyone, which she does. Angelo has a very uncomfortable time of it, but appears to have the Duke’s unequivocal support. But things turn bad for him when his ex turns up and says she was the one who had slept with him, and not Isabella – things become even worse when it turns out that the Duke and the Friar are one and the same people. Angelo confesses and pleads to be killed. The Duke first forces him to marry your woman he was supposed to have married years before and then says he is to be executed. The new bride isn’t exactly over the moon at the prospect of becoming a widow quite so soon – and pleads first with the Duke and then with Isabella to help her convince the Duke to save Angelo’s life.
Isabella kneels down – now, look, I’m a complete sucker generally for unreasonable forgiveness (the fact it is the main lesson of Christianity is also probably part of the reason it is generally ignored by most Christians, but the whole ‘love thine enemy’ idea – particularly when such forgiveness seems utterly impossible and improbable – almost always leaves me on the verge of tears). The Duke then pulls Claudio out of the hat and asks Isabella to marry him – which she agrees to do. They all live happily ever after.
I guess now you can see why it is hard to really call this infinitely complicated plot a comedy. The other thing is that a lot of the ‘morality’ of this play is really very questionable and requires much more thought than is reasonable for a comedy. And not just the morally questionable idea of getting Angelo to sleep with is ex as a way to confound his plans to sleep with Isabella – what was his ex thinking? How would anyone feel at being asked to do such a thing – you’ll get to sleep with the guy you love, but he will think he is sleeping with someone else. Yuck. But the final forgiveness of Angelo for what was his intended rape and murder seems, well, rather mild for what might otherwise be considered a couple of rather serious and career-limiting mistakes.
Like I said, I really do get choked up when someone does an act of infinite forgiveness – as Isabella does in the final scene, except even this scene is very odd. I’m going to quote the speech she gives in full:
Duke: He dies for Claudio’s death.
Isabella: (kneeling) Most bounteous sir,
Look, if it please you, on this man condemned
As if my brother lived. I partly think
A due sincerity governed his deeds
Till he did look on me. Since it is so,
Let him not die. My brother had but justice,
In that he did the thing for which he died.
For Angelo,
His act did not o’ertake his bad intent,
And must be buried but as an intent
That perished by the way. Thoughts are no subjects,
Intents but merely thoughts.
Which is to say – Angelo was a fine and upstanding young man until he looked at me and then, well, how could he help but be driven mad with lust? I’m a bit of a babe in this habit, you know. We fooled him, so he didn’t do what he thought he was going to do – sleeping with this woman rather than me. We can only be condemned for what we do, not what we intend to do, so you can’t kill him on that score. All that is left is that he killed my brother, but then, look, my brother had broken the law, so had it coming anyway.
I really don’t think I would like to have Isabella as my sister, to be honest.
This is a remarkable play. And although I think the plot is so convoluted that there are times it really does strain to keep itself together, the moral dilemmas of some of the characters really do bring us up short at times. Angelo’s self-torment – quite the opposite of what everyone else sees of him – is damned interesting.
There has been lots of talk in the press lately about the slut walks – I’m quite in favour of them (I’ve a preference for dealing with complex issues with both humour and irony if at all possible). However, if anything would prove to that Canadian policeman that ‘if women don’t want to be violated they shouldn’t dress like sluts’ is utter bollocks it is Angelo lusting after Isabella because she is tempting him with her utter purity.
There aren’t really any characters in this play that you can like, either. The Duke seems to have done that favourite Machiavellian ploy of leaving someone unpopular to do the dirty work and then, in exposing his dirty work, gained the benefit of the dirty work while avoiding all of the blame.
Although we might well today disagree with Isabella’s view that her hymen is worth more than her brother’s life – you do need to remember she believed the choice wasn’t just her virginity, but her immortal soul. Nevertheless, she isn’t all that much more forgiving of her brother than Angelo is and so her moral strictness is frankly scary.
Even with all that said, this is an endlessly fascinating play. One that raises lots of questions and presents answers from the characters words and actions that only prompt further thought.
April 6, 2022
The story in Vienna of the disguised Duke and his manipulation of a few of his subjects is amusing, but felt more superficial than As You Like It. Nonetheless, it was very interesting how he left the audience hanging on his proposal to Isabelle.
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
May 14, 2020
4.5 stars
🔹 Rating explanation
〰 Holy crap, I loved this so much. Up until now i’ve only given two of Shakespeare’s plays five stars (Macbeth and Othello). When I first started Measure for Measure however, I thought this play was for sure going to be a new favorite. But as much as I adored it, I did not like the ending (but we’ll get to that later) which is why, although this is a fantastic play, I couldn’t, in good conscience, give it the full 5 stars.
🔹 Reading experience
〰 I went into this knowing absolutely nothing. I didn’t even know if this was a tragedy or a comedy before starting, and decided that I would just have to see how this goes. I normally never do that but I was happy for doing it this time since I genuinely believe that it added to my enjoyment of the story. Although I can’t say that this has some Iconic characters like Iago or Lady Macbeth, I can definitely say that the questions and themes discussed in this play were some of my absolute favorites. My favorite scene in the whole play would be the one between Angelo and Isabella, where he finally tells her what he actually wants from her. I’m not going to spoil anything but I found myself genuinely curious as to what I would do if I were in her shoes.
🔹 Fav aspect of this whole play
〰 In this scene, Shakespeare asks us some of the most difficult questions I have ever read about and poses a new dilemma that just made me rethink my entire existence (as one does when reading Shakespeare of course). The dilemma that Isabella is facing in this scene reminded me a lot of Heinz’s dilemma and I found myself wondering if I actually agreed with her decision or not. The cost in both situations would be too great and she would lose a part of herself no matter what she decided to do. That being said, I don’t think there’s a right answer here but I’ll keep thinking about this and I’ll definitely be asking everyone I know what they think they would have done (because I’m a psychology major and the answer to such a question would actually tell you ALOT about a person).
🔹 Me rambling some more.
〰 Another reason I think this play is forever gonna be special in my heart is because I get shook (and extremely impressed) every time I remember that this was written in 1604. Shakespeare’s courage in denouncing men by showing how they often times blackmail women and use their higher social status and power over them to get what they want astounds me. I mean, how many people were actually willing to do that at the time? To show that women were taken advantage of and mistreated by men (in this case, police officers in particular) and then were called liars simply because a man’s word was considered to be more credible?
🔹 The ending— A BIT SPOILERY SO BEWARE
〰 Now on to the ending... I was absolutely loving this up until the last act. I’m honestly not sure I completely understand how the duke’s plan turned out to be a success. Angelo literally could have just refuted Mariana’s claims... I don’t know, there’s something that I just didn’t quite catch here. Anws, that’s not even what bothered me the most. For some reason, the duke proposing to Isabella -(proposing would be a bit of a stretch here since he literally just told her that they were gonna get married)- is what irked me the most. It was such a hypocritical and selfish move. Not only did he not give her a choice in the matter but he, more than anyone, knew how much she wanted to be a nun. I don’t know, maybe I’m reading too much into this but the whole proposal aspect killed the whole vibe for me. And I know that all comedies at the time ended with marriage proposals (cause that was considered the girl’s reward) but still..
🔹 Overall feelings:
〰 Anyways, all of that being said, this was still absolutely fantastic and I highly recommend it to all. I’m now going to leave you guys with a few of my absolute favorite quotes from this play and I think that after reading them, you’ll understand why this just became my favorite Shakespearean comedy. They’re a bit spoilery though so proceed with caution.
🔹 Quotes
Angelo:
“Answer to this: I, now the voice of the recorded law,
Pronounce. A sentence on your brother’s life:
Might there not be a charity in sin
To save this brother’s life?
Isabella
If you felt like doing it, even at the risk of your soul, sin and charity would balance each other perfectly.”
———————
Isabella:
“And ’twere the cheaper way:
Better it were a brother died at once,
Than that a sister, by redeeming him,
Should die for ever.
Angelo:
“Were not you then as cruel as the sentence
That you have slander’d so?”
———————
Claudio:
“The miserable have no other medicine
But only hope”
———————
Isabella:
“Thy sin’s not accidental, but a trade.
Mercy to thee would prove itself a bawd”
———————
Angelo:
“Admit no other way to save his life,—
As I subscribe not that, nor any other,
But in the loss of question,—that you, his sister,
Finding yourself desired of such a person,
Whose credit with the judge, or own great place,
Could fetch your brother from the manacles
Of the all-building law; and that there were
No earthly mean to save him, but that either
You must lay down the treasures of your body
To this supposed, or else to let him suffer;
What would you do?”
🔹 Rating explanation
〰 Holy crap, I loved this so much. Up until now i’ve only given two of Shakespeare’s plays five stars (Macbeth and Othello). When I first started Measure for Measure however, I thought this play was for sure going to be a new favorite. But as much as I adored it, I did not like the ending (but we’ll get to that later) which is why, although this is a fantastic play, I couldn’t, in good conscience, give it the full 5 stars.
🔹 Reading experience
〰 I went into this knowing absolutely nothing. I didn’t even know if this was a tragedy or a comedy before starting, and decided that I would just have to see how this goes. I normally never do that but I was happy for doing it this time since I genuinely believe that it added to my enjoyment of the story. Although I can’t say that this has some Iconic characters like Iago or Lady Macbeth, I can definitely say that the questions and themes discussed in this play were some of my absolute favorites. My favorite scene in the whole play would be the one between Angelo and Isabella, where he finally tells her what he actually wants from her. I’m not going to spoil anything but I found myself genuinely curious as to what I would do if I were in her shoes.
🔹 Fav aspect of this whole play
〰 In this scene, Shakespeare asks us some of the most difficult questions I have ever read about and poses a new dilemma that just made me rethink my entire existence (as one does when reading Shakespeare of course). The dilemma that Isabella is facing in this scene reminded me a lot of Heinz’s dilemma and I found myself wondering if I actually agreed with her decision or not. The cost in both situations would be too great and she would lose a part of herself no matter what she decided to do. That being said, I don’t think there’s a right answer here but I’ll keep thinking about this and I’ll definitely be asking everyone I know what they think they would have done (because I’m a psychology major and the answer to such a question would actually tell you ALOT about a person).
🔹 Me rambling some more.
〰 Another reason I think this play is forever gonna be special in my heart is because I get shook (and extremely impressed) every time I remember that this was written in 1604. Shakespeare’s courage in denouncing men by showing how they often times blackmail women and use their higher social status and power over them to get what they want astounds me. I mean, how many people were actually willing to do that at the time? To show that women were taken advantage of and mistreated by men (in this case, police officers in particular) and then were called liars simply because a man’s word was considered to be more credible?
🔹 The ending— A BIT SPOILERY SO BEWARE
〰 Now on to the ending... I was absolutely loving this up until the last act. I’m honestly not sure I completely understand how the duke’s plan turned out to be a success. Angelo literally could have just refuted Mariana’s claims... I don’t know, there’s something that I just didn’t quite catch here. Anws, that’s not even what bothered me the most. For some reason, the duke proposing to Isabella -(proposing would be a bit of a stretch here since he literally just told her that they were gonna get married)- is what irked me the most. It was such a hypocritical and selfish move. Not only did he not give her a choice in the matter but he, more than anyone, knew how much she wanted to be a nun. I don’t know, maybe I’m reading too much into this but the whole proposal aspect killed the whole vibe for me. And I know that all comedies at the time ended with marriage proposals (cause that was considered the girl’s reward) but still..
🔹 Overall feelings:
〰 Anyways, all of that being said, this was still absolutely fantastic and I highly recommend it to all. I’m now going to leave you guys with a few of my absolute favorite quotes from this play and I think that after reading them, you’ll understand why this just became my favorite Shakespearean comedy. They’re a bit spoilery though so proceed with caution.
🔹 Quotes
Angelo:
“Answer to this: I, now the voice of the recorded law,
Pronounce. A sentence on your brother’s life:
Might there not be a charity in sin
To save this brother’s life?
Isabella
If you felt like doing it, even at the risk of your soul, sin and charity would balance each other perfectly.”
———————
Isabella:
“And ’twere the cheaper way:
Better it were a brother died at once,
Than that a sister, by redeeming him,
Should die for ever.
Angelo:
“Were not you then as cruel as the sentence
That you have slander’d so?”
———————
Claudio:
“The miserable have no other medicine
But only hope”
———————
Isabella:
“Thy sin’s not accidental, but a trade.
Mercy to thee would prove itself a bawd”
———————
Angelo:
“Admit no other way to save his life,—
As I subscribe not that, nor any other,
But in the loss of question,—that you, his sister,
Finding yourself desired of such a person,
Whose credit with the judge, or own great place,
Could fetch your brother from the manacles
Of the all-building law; and that there were
No earthly mean to save him, but that either
You must lay down the treasures of your body
To this supposed, or else to let him suffer;
What would you do?”
March 28, 2023
"1 Não julgueis, para que não sejais julgados.
2 Porque com o juízo com que julgais, sereis julgados; e com a medida com que medis vos medirão a vós."
Mateus 7: 1-2
Uma das três "peças problema" de Shakespeare que não se encaixam nem na comédia nem na tragédia.
Shakespeare era um visionário ou a humanidade não muda nem avança? Escrita nos idos de 1600 "gira em torno dos conceitos de justiça e corrupção, equidade e abuso de poder..."
2 Porque com o juízo com que julgais, sereis julgados; e com a medida com que medis vos medirão a vós."
Mateus 7: 1-2
Uma das três "peças problema" de Shakespeare que não se encaixam nem na comédia nem na tragédia.
Shakespeare era um visionário ou a humanidade não muda nem avança? Escrita nos idos de 1600 "gira em torno dos conceitos de justiça e corrupção, equidade e abuso de poder..."
September 25, 2021
After reading "Of Spousals" in the Treasure Room of the Harvard Law Library, I wrote two Shakespeare Association of America papers on the handshake spousals-marriages in this play, approved by Judge Henry Swinburne of York Minster, whose courtroom still exists.*** Probably more than any other Shakespeare play, Measure for Measure gains immensely from the context in which it appeared. This Ivo Kamps brings to his edition* of MFM with myriad documents from 1604 or thereabouts, such as the Canons of 1604 which established modern marriage--none under age 21 without parental consent.
This play about transition in rule appears during England's transition from Queen Elizabeth (I!) to King James (I).
Probably the best courtroom scene, and the funniest in all literature, features in Act II.1, where Constable Elbow accuses Mr Froth of trying to seduce his wife, but he gets the legal terms wrong, "My wife, whom I detest before Heaven..."[meaning "attest"] Against his accusation, the clown Pompey, servant to the bawd, defends Mr Froth by using the suspect's face as his witness. Pompey asks the Judge (one of three, as usual in England) if he sees any harm in Froth's face. When the response is NO, Pompey asserts, "I'll swear on a book [the Bible], his face is the worst thing about him..." Hilarious defense, and it works, since Elbow has no counter-evidence.
MFM features a substitute ruler who uses his absolute power to pull a Strauss-Kahn or Bill O'Reilly / Cosby (but without the drugs). Angelo, the promoted Deputy, sleeps with a nun who pleads for her condemned brother's life. In delicious plot irony, the brother is condemned for impregnating his girlfriend. Despite the nun's sleeping with him (though a substitute bedmate is supplied, the substitute ruler's former affianced*) the corrupt deputy, Angelo, of angelic exterior, orders the nun's brother executed. But the Good Duke, in disguise as a Friar, saves the brother by substituting the head of a recent prison deceased.
In sum, the supposed puritanical reformer Angelo has feet of clay, like so many TV preachers and US politicians, and he himself breaches the reforms he pretends, so that the return of the Good Duke heralds wiser, more indulgent rule, like that of the new Good King. (Of course, James I proved much less indulgent and wise than Shakespeare portrays the Duke at the beginning of the king's reign.)
*And I thank the editor for citing me in his intro, one of few he cites there.
**Shakespeare could possibly have drawn this "bed-trick" substitution of the betrothed for the lover from Giordano Bruno's Candelaio, where the wife dresses as the lover and substitues herself. I always told my Shakespeare classes that the MFM substitution doesn't say much for Renaissance sex--of course before lighting, evidently even enough to distinguish one woman from another.
*** See https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserR...
This play about transition in rule appears during England's transition from Queen Elizabeth (I!) to King James (I).
Probably the best courtroom scene, and the funniest in all literature, features in Act II.1, where Constable Elbow accuses Mr Froth of trying to seduce his wife, but he gets the legal terms wrong, "My wife, whom I detest before Heaven..."[meaning "attest"] Against his accusation, the clown Pompey, servant to the bawd, defends Mr Froth by using the suspect's face as his witness. Pompey asks the Judge (one of three, as usual in England) if he sees any harm in Froth's face. When the response is NO, Pompey asserts, "I'll swear on a book [the Bible], his face is the worst thing about him..." Hilarious defense, and it works, since Elbow has no counter-evidence.
MFM features a substitute ruler who uses his absolute power to pull a Strauss-Kahn or Bill O'Reilly / Cosby (but without the drugs). Angelo, the promoted Deputy, sleeps with a nun who pleads for her condemned brother's life. In delicious plot irony, the brother is condemned for impregnating his girlfriend. Despite the nun's sleeping with him (though a substitute bedmate is supplied, the substitute ruler's former affianced*) the corrupt deputy, Angelo, of angelic exterior, orders the nun's brother executed. But the Good Duke, in disguise as a Friar, saves the brother by substituting the head of a recent prison deceased.
In sum, the supposed puritanical reformer Angelo has feet of clay, like so many TV preachers and US politicians, and he himself breaches the reforms he pretends, so that the return of the Good Duke heralds wiser, more indulgent rule, like that of the new Good King. (Of course, James I proved much less indulgent and wise than Shakespeare portrays the Duke at the beginning of the king's reign.)
*And I thank the editor for citing me in his intro, one of few he cites there.
**Shakespeare could possibly have drawn this "bed-trick" substitution of the betrothed for the lover from Giordano Bruno's Candelaio, where the wife dresses as the lover and substitues herself. I always told my Shakespeare classes that the MFM substitution doesn't say much for Renaissance sex--of course before lighting, evidently even enough to distinguish one woman from another.
*** See https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserR...
June 20, 2020
This isn’t a new favorite and I was initially planning on rating it 3 stars given that my level of engagement was pretty neutral as I read, but the more I sit with it the more impressive I find it. Also, no amount of warnings that ‘it’s not actually a comedy’ could have prepared me for how dark this was, whew.
June 26, 2018
“Il tiranno si nutre di ciò che biasima.” (IV. II.)
L'inflessibile severità di un vicario caduto ipocritamente nello stesso “crimine” che si propone di punire; la testa ormai in bilico di un giovane condannato a morte per amore libero testimoniato dal ventre gravido della fidanzata; una lotta senza quartiere contro ruffiane e frequentatori di bordelli; l'onore di una novizia a rischio al fine di salvare la testa del fratello dalla scure del boia; la lungimirante astuzia e il buon senso di un capo di stato travestito da frate...
Sono questi i principali ingredienti di “Misura per misura”, assai divertente opera dei primi del XVII secolo con risvolti squisitamente da commedia, sebbene essa venga annoverata fra i drammi della vasta produzione shakespeariana. Avrebbe potuto benissimo recare anche il titolo “Tutto è bene quel che finisce bene”, rubandolo a un altro bel lavoro del Bardo, tanto viene spontaneo cos�� commentare al termine di questo “dramma” ricco di gustosi guizzi e colpi di scena che contribuiscono a tenere piacevolmente deste l'attenzione e la curiosità di chi legge.
Giustizia per tutti e magnanima remissione dei peccati, anche per chi avrebbe meritato di essere giudicato (e giustiziato) sulla base dello stesso metro che riservava agli altri, inducono a plaudere all'autentico genio di Shakespeare che, attraverso l'ingegno di un personaggio come quello del Duca di Vienna, ribalta una situazione paradossale in cui, alla fin fine, tutti salvano qualcosa (chi la testa, chi l'onore) senza restare nel contempo nemmeno a mani vuote; persino chi era destinata al convento finisce per non farvi più ritorno rimorchiando inaspettatamente un marito (e che marito!) e i galeotti impenitenti trovano perdono e possibilità di vita nuova.
Non avrà certo il tenebroso ed enigmatico fascino di “Amleto” né quello romantico di “Romeo e Giulietta”, ma “Misura per misura” resta un piccolo capolavoro – e forse neanche tanto piccolo – dove, finalmente, non si disperdono copiose lacrime e dal profondo il cuore ringrazia perché, in verità, abbiamo tutti un disperato desiderio di umanità e buoni sentimenti.
“Chi vuole impugnare la spada del cielo,
dovrebb'essere non meno santo che severo;
fare di se stesso un esempio,
avere grazia per resistere e virtù per agire;
punire gli altri nella stessa misura
con cui valuta le proprie colpe.
Guai a lui, se i suoi colpi spietati uccidono
per delitti che egli stesso vagheggia!
[…]
Uomo, cosa non puoi nascondere
in te sotto apparenze angeliche?
Una buona reputazione costruita sul delitto
prospera nella prassi dei nostri tempi,
e la legge, tenue ragnatela, cattura i moscerini,
Ma i colpevoli di maggior peso la spaccano.”
[“Misura per misura”, III. I.]
L'inflessibile severità di un vicario caduto ipocritamente nello stesso “crimine” che si propone di punire; la testa ormai in bilico di un giovane condannato a morte per amore libero testimoniato dal ventre gravido della fidanzata; una lotta senza quartiere contro ruffiane e frequentatori di bordelli; l'onore di una novizia a rischio al fine di salvare la testa del fratello dalla scure del boia; la lungimirante astuzia e il buon senso di un capo di stato travestito da frate...
Sono questi i principali ingredienti di “Misura per misura”, assai divertente opera dei primi del XVII secolo con risvolti squisitamente da commedia, sebbene essa venga annoverata fra i drammi della vasta produzione shakespeariana. Avrebbe potuto benissimo recare anche il titolo “Tutto è bene quel che finisce bene”, rubandolo a un altro bel lavoro del Bardo, tanto viene spontaneo cos�� commentare al termine di questo “dramma” ricco di gustosi guizzi e colpi di scena che contribuiscono a tenere piacevolmente deste l'attenzione e la curiosità di chi legge.
Giustizia per tutti e magnanima remissione dei peccati, anche per chi avrebbe meritato di essere giudicato (e giustiziato) sulla base dello stesso metro che riservava agli altri, inducono a plaudere all'autentico genio di Shakespeare che, attraverso l'ingegno di un personaggio come quello del Duca di Vienna, ribalta una situazione paradossale in cui, alla fin fine, tutti salvano qualcosa (chi la testa, chi l'onore) senza restare nel contempo nemmeno a mani vuote; persino chi era destinata al convento finisce per non farvi più ritorno rimorchiando inaspettatamente un marito (e che marito!) e i galeotti impenitenti trovano perdono e possibilità di vita nuova.
Non avrà certo il tenebroso ed enigmatico fascino di “Amleto” né quello romantico di “Romeo e Giulietta”, ma “Misura per misura” resta un piccolo capolavoro – e forse neanche tanto piccolo – dove, finalmente, non si disperdono copiose lacrime e dal profondo il cuore ringrazia perché, in verità, abbiamo tutti un disperato desiderio di umanità e buoni sentimenti.
“Chi vuole impugnare la spada del cielo,
dovrebb'essere non meno santo che severo;
fare di se stesso un esempio,
avere grazia per resistere e virtù per agire;
punire gli altri nella stessa misura
con cui valuta le proprie colpe.
Guai a lui, se i suoi colpi spietati uccidono
per delitti che egli stesso vagheggia!
[…]
Uomo, cosa non puoi nascondere
in te sotto apparenze angeliche?
Una buona reputazione costruita sul delitto
prospera nella prassi dei nostri tempi,
e la legge, tenue ragnatela, cattura i moscerini,
Ma i colpevoli di maggior peso la spaccano.”
[“Misura per misura”, III. I.]
October 18, 2019
This is the third of Shakespeare’s “problem plays”—along with Troilus and Cressida and All’s Well that Ends Well—and I think certainly the greatest. These three plays are given a special category because their genres have proven difficult to pin down. Measure for Measure, like All’s Well that Ends Well, is superficially a comedy; yet it takes place within a world with loose and uncertain values, and often causes us to scratch our heads rather than to laugh or smile.
The plot is flagrantly absurd. Vincentio, the duke of Vienna, decides to go away and leave his power in the hands of an upright judge, Angelo. Then, in secret, the duke disguises himself as a friar and sets about manipulating the other characters of the play. In this he resembles no character more than Iago; yet unlike that villain, Vincentio has no overarching goal, no consistent end. His plans are generally beneficent—arranging several marriages (including his own), and protecting a man’s life—yet still perplexing.
Surely the duke could have effected all of these goals more easily by simply remaining the duke. And, besides, the degree of deceit and trickery involved in his schemes, the blatant emotional manipulation, give us pause. He is willing, for example, to tell the woman he hopes to marry that her brother has died, just so that he can appear all the more heroic when it is revealed that it is not so. Simultaneously, he is willing to counsel the brother to prepare for death, giving him a sort of nihilistic sermon about the futility of life, even when he knows that the brother will not die. In his constant manipulation of the characters’ emotions and actions, he resembles not only Iago, but Shakespeare himself, as a kind of playwright within the play. Yet of course Vincentio’s actions, involving “real” people, are far more damnable.
The issue of morality, or the lack of it, looms large within this play. The central conflict is, apparently, whether laws should be strictly enforced, or altered by circumstances and tempered by human kindness. Yet this philosophical question is eclipsed by the play’s moral chaos—and morality itself is dissolved into a contest of trickery. Angelo tries to trick Isabella, Isabella to trick Angelo, and Vincentio to trick them all. The duke wins, not because of any moral superiority, but because of superior craftiness; and the question of whether he did as he ought becomes entirely irrelevant to the play’s implausible concluding scene.
This strange concoction of ethics and nihilism, of order and chaos, of desire and whim, makes this play genuinely absorbing, even if not wholly satisfying. It is the sort of play that makes us wonder what was happening in Shakespeare’s own life.
The plot is flagrantly absurd. Vincentio, the duke of Vienna, decides to go away and leave his power in the hands of an upright judge, Angelo. Then, in secret, the duke disguises himself as a friar and sets about manipulating the other characters of the play. In this he resembles no character more than Iago; yet unlike that villain, Vincentio has no overarching goal, no consistent end. His plans are generally beneficent—arranging several marriages (including his own), and protecting a man’s life—yet still perplexing.
Surely the duke could have effected all of these goals more easily by simply remaining the duke. And, besides, the degree of deceit and trickery involved in his schemes, the blatant emotional manipulation, give us pause. He is willing, for example, to tell the woman he hopes to marry that her brother has died, just so that he can appear all the more heroic when it is revealed that it is not so. Simultaneously, he is willing to counsel the brother to prepare for death, giving him a sort of nihilistic sermon about the futility of life, even when he knows that the brother will not die. In his constant manipulation of the characters’ emotions and actions, he resembles not only Iago, but Shakespeare himself, as a kind of playwright within the play. Yet of course Vincentio’s actions, involving “real” people, are far more damnable.
The issue of morality, or the lack of it, looms large within this play. The central conflict is, apparently, whether laws should be strictly enforced, or altered by circumstances and tempered by human kindness. Yet this philosophical question is eclipsed by the play’s moral chaos—and morality itself is dissolved into a contest of trickery. Angelo tries to trick Isabella, Isabella to trick Angelo, and Vincentio to trick them all. The duke wins, not because of any moral superiority, but because of superior craftiness; and the question of whether he did as he ought becomes entirely irrelevant to the play’s implausible concluding scene.
This strange concoction of ethics and nihilism, of order and chaos, of desire and whim, makes this play genuinely absorbing, even if not wholly satisfying. It is the sort of play that makes us wonder what was happening in Shakespeare’s own life.
September 4, 2024
A comedy, even though when the Duke takes a powder(goes undercover), the fellow left in charge tends to be a hypocritical tyrant, things fall into place and once again order is restored. Not as ha ha laugh out loud funny but imagining it with an all male cast back in the day the theater group must have been rolling.
9-3-2024 Re-read. Listening to the play by the Marlowe Professional Players presented by Argo Classics (Audible) very enjoyable and well worth the revisit.
9-3-2024 Re-read. Listening to the play by the Marlowe Professional Players presented by Argo Classics (Audible) very enjoyable and well worth the revisit.
November 24, 2018
Measure For Measure is one of those Shakespearean plays that doesn't fall into a state of quietness after the first reading. It is so intricate and quotable and meaningful that even reading a line twice gives something new. It is too troublesome to be called a comedy and yet, comedy it is. I have read a few of the Shakespearean comedies, but an underlying dark theme that is a part of this play couldn't be found anywhere. Its ambiguous ending also gave an unsettling time.
Angelo is given the power of the Duke of Vienna in the latter's absence. To not make "a scarecrow of the law", he soughts to bring order back into the city. Thus comes the title Measure For Measure into play - what you give, you shall take back.
Angelo is given the power of the Duke of Vienna in the latter's absence. To not make "a scarecrow of the law", he soughts to bring order back into the city. Thus comes the title Measure For Measure into play - what you give, you shall take back.
September 18, 2016
The last of Shakespeare’s comedies and I get the distinct impression that he was already done with that genre and somehow got convinced to do “just one more.” As part of my goal to see all of Shakespeare’s plays performed, I attended a screening of Measure for Measure, filmed in Stratford, England. If you struggle with Shakespeare, I can’t recommend highly enough that you see performances of his works, rather than try to read them. In this production, I appreciated how well they used the stage, the scenery, costumes, dance, and music. The actor who played Elbow and Barnardine was shaped like a cannonball, but was remarkably light on his feet and extremely agile. At one point, he amazed the audience by tumbling across the stage (as Elbow). The actor who played the Duke took some cues from John Cleese, who he reminded me forcibly of while “blessing” people and reciting religious invocations while pretending to be a friar.
Why do I think that Shakespeare was done with comedies? Well, the ending is happy, as required, but it felt artificial and contrived. The marriage between the Duke and Isabella just feels wrong—what happened to her strong religious vocation? Same issue with the marriage of Angelo & Mariana. Why would an eligible woman want to marry a man who rejected her when her dowry went missing and was so cold and unfeeling? Why on earth would she want to sleep with him, fooling him into thinking that she is Isabella? And yet, she happily complies with the Duke/Friar’s subterfuge and then willingly marries the man.
But the part of the play that resonated the most strongly with me was the point where Angelo has tried to make a bargain with Isabella, her virginity for the life of her brother. When she threatens to reveal his true nature to the world, he turns to her and says:
A cold shiver went down my back, and I couldn’t help but see Jian Ghomeshi in my mind’s eye, telling the women who he punched and mistreated, “I’m a celebrity. Do you think that anyone will believe you?” My God, this play was first performed at court in 1604 and here we are in 2016, and men are still saying this to the women whom they abuse! Its still “he said, she said” even in courts of law, as we continue to watch men get away with these crimes.
Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is out of date hasn’t ever attended his plays. He deals with universal human issues that everyone can identify with.
Why do I think that Shakespeare was done with comedies? Well, the ending is happy, as required, but it felt artificial and contrived. The marriage between the Duke and Isabella just feels wrong—what happened to her strong religious vocation? Same issue with the marriage of Angelo & Mariana. Why would an eligible woman want to marry a man who rejected her when her dowry went missing and was so cold and unfeeling? Why on earth would she want to sleep with him, fooling him into thinking that she is Isabella? And yet, she happily complies with the Duke/Friar’s subterfuge and then willingly marries the man.
But the part of the play that resonated the most strongly with me was the point where Angelo has tried to make a bargain with Isabella, her virginity for the life of her brother. When she threatens to reveal his true nature to the world, he turns to her and says:
“Who will believe thee, Isabel? My unsoil’d name, th’ austereness of my life, My vouch against you, and my place i’ th’ state, Will so your accusation overweight, That you shall stifle in your own report, And smell of calumny.”
A cold shiver went down my back, and I couldn’t help but see Jian Ghomeshi in my mind’s eye, telling the women who he punched and mistreated, “I’m a celebrity. Do you think that anyone will believe you?” My God, this play was first performed at court in 1604 and here we are in 2016, and men are still saying this to the women whom they abuse! Its still “he said, she said” even in courts of law, as we continue to watch men get away with these crimes.
Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is out of date hasn’t ever attended his plays. He deals with universal human issues that everyone can identify with.
April 30, 2019
A fascinating insight to Shakespeare's often-overlooked didacticism, in regards to morality. Duke seems to me to be an embodiment of Shakespeare's own intentions as an architect of narrative, trying to hold up a mirror to his reader and encourage them to objectively judge their own moral mistakes.
July 1, 2021
کتاب رو دوسال پیش از طاقچه خووندم.
و ای کاش همونموقع که خووندمش ریویوش رو مینوشتم، اما الان برای ریویو خیلی دیره و دوباره باید بخوونمش
ولیکن عالی بود، عالـی.
از اون کتابهایی که دوست دارم هدیه بگیرمش.
و بهنظرم تو کتابخوونهی هرکسی، باید یه شکسپیر باشه و من این کتاب رو انتخاب میکنم.
.
و ای کاش همونموقع که خووندمش ریویوش رو مینوشتم، اما الان برای ریویو خیلی دیره و دوباره باید بخوونمش
ولیکن عالی بود، عالـی.
از اون کتابهایی که دوست دارم هدیه بگیرمش.
و بهنظرم تو کتابخوونهی هرکسی، باید یه شکسپیر باشه و من این کتاب رو انتخاب میکنم.
.
September 30, 2018
Shakespeare'in diğer komedyalarına kıyasla daha ciddi bir tona sahip olduğu için tragikomedya olarak tanımlanabilecek "Measure for Measure / Kısasa Kısas", içinde birçok ahlaksal konuyu barındıran eleştirel alt metniyle oldukça başarılı bir eser. İnsan erdemliliği üzerine düşündürücü öğeler okuma şansı bulduğumuz oyunun cinsellik ve bekaret üzerine olan yenilikçi tutumu hem Shakespeare oyunları açısından hem de zamanının şartlarına göre fazlasıyla önem taşıyor. Öte yandan, zaman zaman İncil'le paralellik gösteren eserde insanların adalete olan tek taraflı bakış açısına da yakından bakma şansı buluyoruz. Kesinlikle okunması gereken Shakespeare oyunları arasında.
07.06.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
07.06.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
August 11, 2018
Shakespeare answers the question: what is self-righteousness and how do we deal with it? He answers the question with grace and humor.
The plot revolves around this good and "just" man who signs up for Ashley Madison never realizing his employer is monitoring his computer. In the end he is punished by having to marry his betrothed. Fair dealing for the betrothed in that culture. It always seems to me that Shakespeare has a fair amount of respect for women and even goodness and a fair assessment of humanity to boot.
The plot revolves around this good and "just" man who signs up for Ashley Madison never realizing his employer is monitoring his computer. In the end he is punished by having to marry his betrothed. Fair dealing for the betrothed in that culture. It always seems to me that Shakespeare has a fair amount of respect for women and even goodness and a fair assessment of humanity to boot.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,696 reviews